According to the codified portions of Chabot's donations on OpenSecrets, he actually did not receive much money directly from the TV/Movies/Music industry. According to Chabot's 2006 Industry Breakdown it was his 19th greatest contributor, giving $31,000.
However, a mischievous explanation of his manipulation can be found by looking to his revolving door(*). Chabot's recently departed Counsel, Etheridge Berkley, was named Vice President and Counsel of the NMPA (Nat'l Music Publishers Assoc'n) in March of 2005.
When it comes down to it, you will never be able to prove or establish conclusively when "life" begins. Because "life" is a term and means whatever we want it to.
In all debates on this (and related) topics, we see many clever insights that play off of our linguistic tendencies and our gut reactions (these come from both sides of the debate: "Perhaps we have already killed the one who was to find the cure for Cancer", "The research that we could have done might have saved your dying grandma" etc.).
Any progress in our understanding of opposing viewpoints that we can make through the mincing of terminology has already been long since exhausted -- we all more or less understand each others positions, we have all been subjected to the various explorations in the hypothetical on this topic. The next thing for us to do is to realize that we don't have to, and in truth never will, agree completely.
One of the natures of human interaction in community is that of compromise for the sake of pooling resources. We will always have disagreements about what is or is not moral -- it's a byproduct of freedom. Instead of repeating arguments, we eventually have to make what will ultimately be a largely arbitrary definition of what we are all trying to describe (I think that splitting the term "life"/"[a]live" into it's multiple understandings would be a good start, since it's been analyzed into ambiguity). After establishing a usable set of terminology, we can then proceed to establish policies (or choose not to establish policies) regarding these. Once the terminology is sufficiently well established to accurately describe the issue (read: once the bs is cleared away) the law making should become, in theory, largely just the of polling members of the community for what they want to do (or what freedoms they are willing to forfeit) and drafting policy to reflect this. If the outcome of this is disagreeable to you, perhaps you are, in fact, in the wrong community.
It is not unreasonable to look to other communities that may maintain a collective ethos that is more agreeable to yours. Often times, people will say something along the lines of "If you don't like the way this [community group] is, then LEAVE!"... Well the truth is, they may be right (it's usually more complicated than that -- the value of your community is often not swayed entirely by a single issue) -- and it doesn't need to be a dramatic or a violent, or even a particularly noteworthy occurrence for someone to choose to leave a community.
If you find yourself living in a nation that doesn't allow the scientific freedom (or lack thereof) that you desire, and if that is important enough to you, then of course you should explore alternate communities in which that would be allowed. But we really need to get past trying to "prove" that the law should be a certain way.
Morality has no place in community policy, except as a secondary influence. What the people in the community want and what they are willing to do/forfeit to that end is the only thing that is a valid explanation for law. For some (many?) people, morality might be the reason why they are willing to make a personal sacrifice for the community, but that is (or should be) secondary to the fact that they are willing to do so.
My point is that this debate has been exhaustively completed, and it seems like all that there is to do now is periodically poll public opinion and maintain the public policy to match that, and let those of us who are displeased with the outcome make our own choices on whether the community is one in which we want to participate. But at this point, the attempts at moral "proof" of the validity of community policy ends up just being ambiguous fluff that confuses the issues.
At least approach the debate with the understanding that your morality (or your purported lack thereof) does not give you any grounds for demanding a similar moral stance from anyone else in your community -- in pursu
In cases where two sets of options produced insignificantly different speeds, a physical binary decision device (U.S. quarter coin) was flipped to determine which would be used.
That had to be fun for them to write up.
I am going to go convert two of my physical binary decision devices into a cup of coffee.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the codified portions of Chabot's donations on OpenSecrets, he actually did not receive much money directly from the TV/Movies/Music industry. According to Chabot's 2006 Industry Breakdown it was his 19th greatest contributor, giving $31,000.
However, a mischievous explanation of his manipulation can be found by looking to his revolving door(*). Chabot's recently departed Counsel, Etheridge Berkley, was named Vice President and Counsel of the NMPA (Nat'l Music Publishers Assoc'n) in March of 2005.
For more, see Berkley's revolving door profile and the NMPA press release of Berkley's appointment[pdf] ("I know that the U.S. music publishing industry will find her to be a terrific champion on their behalf").
(*) - "Revolving Door" in this context refers to those who go back-and-forth between working on K Street (lobbying) and Capital Hill (congressional committees). For more, see Time Magazine's The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close .
When it comes down to it, you will never be able to prove or establish conclusively when "life" begins. Because "life" is a term and means whatever we want it to.
In all debates on this (and related) topics, we see many clever insights that play off of our linguistic tendencies and our gut reactions (these come from both sides of the debate: "Perhaps we have already killed the one who was to find the cure for Cancer", "The research that we could have done might have saved your dying grandma" etc.). Any progress in our understanding of opposing viewpoints that we can make through the mincing of terminology has already been long since exhausted -- we all more or less understand each others positions, we have all been subjected to the various explorations in the hypothetical on this topic. The next thing for us to do is to realize that we don't have to, and in truth never will, agree completely.
One of the natures of human interaction in community is that of compromise for the sake of pooling resources. We will always have disagreements about what is or is not moral -- it's a byproduct of freedom. Instead of repeating arguments, we eventually have to make what will ultimately be a largely arbitrary definition of what we are all trying to describe (I think that splitting the term "life"/"[a]live" into it's multiple understandings would be a good start, since it's been analyzed into ambiguity). After establishing a usable set of terminology, we can then proceed to establish policies (or choose not to establish policies) regarding these. Once the terminology is sufficiently well established to accurately describe the issue (read: once the bs is cleared away) the law making should become, in theory, largely just the of polling members of the community for what they want to do (or what freedoms they are willing to forfeit) and drafting policy to reflect this. If the outcome of this is disagreeable to you, perhaps you are, in fact, in the wrong community.
It is not unreasonable to look to other communities that may maintain a collective ethos that is more agreeable to yours. Often times, people will say something along the lines of "If you don't like the way this [community group] is, then LEAVE!"... Well the truth is, they may be right (it's usually more complicated than that -- the value of your community is often not swayed entirely by a single issue) -- and it doesn't need to be a dramatic or a violent, or even a particularly noteworthy occurrence for someone to choose to leave a community.
If you find yourself living in a nation that doesn't allow the scientific freedom (or lack thereof) that you desire, and if that is important enough to you, then of course you should explore alternate communities in which that would be allowed. But we really need to get past trying to "prove" that the law should be a certain way.
Morality has no place in community policy, except as a secondary influence. What the people in the community want and what they are willing to do/forfeit to that end is the only thing that is a valid explanation for law. For some (many?) people, morality might be the reason why they are willing to make a personal sacrifice for the community, but that is (or should be) secondary to the fact that they are willing to do so.
My point is that this debate has been exhaustively completed, and it seems like all that there is to do now is periodically poll public opinion and maintain the public policy to match that, and let those of us who are displeased with the outcome make our own choices on whether the community is one in which we want to participate. But at this point, the attempts at moral "proof" of the validity of community policy ends up just being ambiguous fluff that confuses the issues.
At least approach the debate with the understanding that your morality (or your purported lack thereof) does not give you any grounds for demanding a similar moral stance from anyone else in your community -- in pursu
I am going to go convert two of my physical binary decision devices into a cup of coffee.